Article

Journal of Reinforced Plastics

and Composites

Acoustical properties of Lyocell, 29(20) 3149–3154

! The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions:
hemp, and flax composites sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0731684410367533
jrp.sagepub.com

Christoph Buksnowitz1, Ramesh Adusumalli2, Andreas Pahler3,

Herbert Sixta2,4 and Wolfgang Gindl1,2

Abstract
This study characterizes the acoustical behavior of natural fiber composites. Regenerated cellulose fibers (Lyocell),
hemp fibers, and flax fibers were embedded in an epoxy-matrix. These unidirectional composites were tested
for their logarithmic damping decrement, the resonance frequency, the ultrasound velocity, the dynamic and static
modulus of elasticity, and bending strength and density. Glass-epoxy composites served as a reference. All tested
cellulosic fibers showed a significantly higher damping at lower densities. The ultrasound velocity was in the range of
the reference for Lyocell– and hemp–fiber composites. Taking the low density into account, the dynamic and static
modulus of elasticity of the samples were relatively high compared to the glass reference. The specific acoustical
properties of these natural fiber composites point at high value applications, e.g., devices that require high damping of
the body structures.

Keywords
natural fibers, Lyocell, acoustical properties, dynamic modulus of elasticity, logarithmic damping decrement, ultrasound
velocity

Introduction However, natural fibers also have a number of disad-

Fiber-reinforced plastics (FRP) were developed in the
1950s to improve the stiffness of monolithic plastics and
to serve as lightweight, non-corrosive substitutes for
metals with a high specific strength and modulus.1–3
These ‘advanced’ plastic composites are used in the
aerospace industry and to manufacture automotive
parts, building materials, and recently in special sport-
ing equipment and entertainment devices. In 95% of
the cases glass fibers are used as reinforcing agents in
FRPs.3,4 Due to the difficulties in the recycling and re-
use of these glass fiber composites5 and motivated by
European regulations on composite waste management
such as ‘End-of-life vehicles regulation (ELV)’ and
‘European Composite Recycling Concept’, new com-
posites called biocomposites appeared in the late
1980s in which glass fibers were replaced by renewable
natural fibers.4,6
The advantages of natural fibers such as flax, hemp,
ramie, and others are low density, low cost, ease of
processing, enhanced energy recovery, ‘CO2 neutrality,’
and biodegradability.7–11
vantages with respect to their uses in composites.8,12–14
The most important disadvantage is the considerable
variation in their mechanical properties.
The micromechanics of natural and regenerated cel-
lulose fibers as well as their composites have not been
fully studied by now, but some studies contribute to
that field.15–17 The mechanisms of adhesion between
1
Department of Material Sciences and Process Engineering, Institute of
Wood Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria.
2
Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Linz, Austria.
3
Holzforschung TU München, Munich, Germany.
4
Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Corresponding author:
Christoph Buksnowitz, Department of Material Sciences and Process
Engineering, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Peter Jordan
Strasse 82, A-1190 Vienna, Austria
Email: christoph.buksnowitz@boku.ac.at

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016
3150
cellulose fibers and polymer matrices have also not been
reported in detail yet.18,19 With the aim of assessing
their suitability for polymer reinforcement these fibers
were subjected to single fiber tensile testing14 to deter-
mine strength, stiffness, and elongation. In addition the
fibre–matrix adhesion and the mechanical behavior of a
cellulose fiber–epoxy composite system were
investigated.20
This study characterizes the unidirectional epoxy
composites with different kinds of fibers (Lyocell,
hemp, flax, glass) in terms of vibrational behavior
(damping, resonance frequency, sound velocity) as
well as mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity,
strength).
The aim of this study was to characterize the acous-
tical behavior of cellulose fiber composites in order to
derive possible fields of application.
Materials
Fibers
Four different kinds of fibers were used as reinforcing
agents in the composites. Lyocell filament fibers
(Lenzing AG, Austria), 10.5 mm in diameter represented
the regenerated cellulosic fibers. Hemp fibers 10–40 mm
in diameter (Hanf-Faser-Fabrik, Uckermark, Ger-
many), and flax rovings (Holstein Flachs GmbH, Miels-
dorf, Germany) stood for the group of renewable
natural cellulose fibers within this project. E-Glass
(14 mm) served as a reference fiber.
Matrix
A two-component epoxy matrix (resin LF, hardener
LF1 1101001) with a pot life of 40 min was used in
combination with an active diluent (EPD BD), which
was obtained from R&G Faserverbundwerkstoffe
GmbH, Waldenbuch, Germany.
Composites
Unidirectional composites (UD) were produced using a
special steel mold allowing for a straight and parallel
alignment as well as an even distribution of fibers
within the composite before pressing. Priming wax
and film release agent PVA were applied on the steel
molds. The fiber bundle rovings were placed in the
mold and the ends were fixed to align the fibers straight.
The epoxy resin and the hardener were mixed in a ratio
of 100 : 40. To decrease the resin viscosity, 5% (volume)
diluent was added and the whole mixture was preheated
to 50 C. Fiber rovings were slowly impregnated with
the resin. Parallel metal disk rollers were used for
Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 29(20)
de-airing and to compact the roving. The composites
were pressed at 80 C and 18 bar pressure for 2 h. Final
composite dimensions were 300  20  2 mm3 with 67%
fiber content by weight. A total of 53 samples were
investigated (Lyocell n ¼ 32, hemp n ¼ 4, flax n ¼ 6,
glass n ¼ 11).
Methods
Density
The density of the composite materials was determined
gravimetrically.
Mechanical testing
Three-point bending tests according to the DIN 53 186
standard21 were performed on a universal testing
machine (Zwick/Roell Z100). Stress was measured
with a resolution of 0.167 N, whereas strain was mea-
sured using a macro sensor with a resolution of 1.5 mm.
Strength (MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) were
determined for each sample. The MOE was addition-
ally calculated from the sound velocity measurements
applying Equation (1) and from the resonance fre-
quency of the first mode using Equation (2):22
E ¼ v2   ðN=mm2 Þ, ð1Þ
where v is the sound velocity (m/s), E, the modulus of
elasticity (N/mm2), and q, the density (g/cm3).
Edyn ¼ ð42  L4  f2n  Þ=ðm4n  k2 Þ, ð2Þ
where Edyn is the dynamic Young’s modulus (N/m2), L,
the freely oscillating length (m), fn, the resonance fre-
quency of mode n (Hz), q, the density (kg/m3), mn,
the constant, determined by certain end conditions
and the mode of vibration. For example, first mode,
one free end one fixed end mn ¼ 1.875 (–), k2 ¼ b 2/12
where b (m) is the depth of the rod in the plane of
bending (m2).
Acoustics
Sound velocity
The sound velocity was measured at 54 kHz in the lon-
gitudinal direction. The transit time was determined by
means of an ultrasonic tester (PUNDIT – C.N.S.
Electronics Ltd., London, UK) with a resolution of
0.1 ms. The transmitter was attached with a con-
stant pressure on all samples. No contact medium
was used to transmit sound waves from the
Buksnowitz et al. 3151

transmitter to the specimens. The sound velocity was
calculated according to Equation (3):
v ¼ l  t1 ,
where v is the sound velocity (m/s), l, the specimen
length, path length (m), and t, the transit time of ultra-
sound (s).
remaining free end was deflected to a defined position.
After the release of the flexed end a laser device (M7L/2
sensor, MEL Mikroelektronik GmbH) picked up the
ð3Þ amplitude of the damped vibration over time.25 The
logged amplitude–time signal was used to calculate
the logarithmic decrement by applying Equation (4):
1
 ¼ lnðXq  Xqþ1 Þ, ð4Þ

where  is the logarithmic decrement (–), Xq, the

Logarithmic decrement (damping)
The logarithmic decrement (related closely to the loss
tangent) was determined according to DIN EN ISO
6721-1 and DIN EN ISO 6721-3.23,24 The specimens
(UD) were clamped at one end (Figure 1). The
Clamping mechanism
amplitude q, and Xq+1, the amplitude q + 1 (directly
following Xq).
The logarithmic decrement was averaged over 15
oscillations starting at a certain amplitude to avoid
the noise in the initial phase of vibration. Note that
the relationship between the logarithmic decrement
and the loss tangent is  ¼ 2p tan /2.26
Resonance frequency
The resonance frequency (first bending mode) was
derived from Fourier transformation of the ampli-
tude–time signal. The resonance frequency was com-
puted by a standard computer program (Diadem)
using the signal from the test set-up described for der-
ivation of logarithmic decrement.

Results and discussion

Support Laser Mean values and standard deviation of the density and
modulus of rupture are shown in Table 1 for all tested
composite types. The acoustical properties and the
modulus of elasticity are illustrated in Figures 2–5.
Sample
The density of the natural fiber composites
(mean: hemp 1.24 g/cm3, flax 1.10 g/cm3; standard

Table 1. Mean values and standard deviations of density

(g/cm3m) and modulus of rupture (MPa) of the Lyocell–, hemp–,
flax–, and glass–epoxy composites

Arithmetic Standard
Parameter mean deviation
Deflection bedstop
Density (g/cm3)
Lyocell 1.27 0.023
Hemp 1.24 0.009
Flax 1.10 0.028
Ground plate
Glass 1.69 0.096
Modulus of rupture bending (MPa)
Lyocell 197.6 15.03
Hemp 221.8 21.75
Flax 144.5 17.20
Figure 1. Experimental setup for the measurement of the
Glass 835.2 149.48
logarithmic damping decrement and the resonance frequencies.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016
3152 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 29(20)

5000 19

Resonance frequency (first mode) (Hz)

18
Ultra sound velocity (m/s)

4500
17

16
4000

15

3500 14

13
Lyocell Hemp Flax Glass
Fiber type Lyocell Hemp Flax Glass
Fiber type
Figure 2. Ultrasound velocity (m/s) for Lyocell–, hemp–, flax–
and glass–epoxy composites measured at 54 kHz.
Figure 4. Resonance frequency (first mode) (Hz) of the
Lyocell–, hemp–, flax–, and glass–epoxy composites.

0.12
Logarithmic damping decrement (–)

40 MOE type
MOE static 3-point bending
0.10 MOE dyn. soundvelocity
MOE dyn. res. frequency
35
Modulus of elasticity (MOE) (GPa)

0.08
30

0.06
25

0.04 20

0.02 15

Lyocell Hemp Flax Glass 10

Fiber type
Lyocell Hemp Flax Glass
Figure 3. Logarithmic damping decrement (–) of the Lyocell–, Fiber type
hemp–, flax–, and glass–epoxy composites.
Figure 5. Modulus of elasticity (GPa) of the Lyocell–, hemp–,
deviation: hemp 0.009 g/cm3, flax 0.028 g/cm3) as well flax–, and glass–epoxy composites determined by the three-point
bending test, sound velocity, and resonance frequency.
as the density of the Lyocell composites (mean:
1.27 g/cm3; standard deviation: 0.023 g/cm3) was signif-
icantly lower than the density of the glass–epoxy com- difference between Lyocell, hemp, and flax to the refer-
posites (mean: 1.69 g/cm3; standard deviation: ence glass–epoxy composite is less distinct for the
0.096 g/cm3). This density offset can also partly explain MOE. The dynamic MOE shows higher values than
the four times higher modulus of rupture for the glass– the ones determined by the three-point bending tests
epoxy-composites. The deficiencies in mechanical per- and resonance frequency. This pattern can be observed
formance can be partly ascribed to the fact, that the through all tested kinds of composites (Figure 5).
high mechanical properties often quoted for these mate- Ultrasound velocity is around 4500 m/s for Lyocell,
rials are not representative for longer fiber bundles used hemp and glass composites (mean: Lyocell 4218 m/s,
in the manufacturing of composite materials.27 The hemp 4663 m/s, glass 4481 m/s; standard

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016
Buksnowitz et al.
deviation: Lyocell 130 m/s, hemp 336 m/s, glass 101 m/
s), whereas flax shows significantly lower values (mean:
3674 m/s; standard deviation 200 m/s). The resonance
frequency of flax shows little variation (mean:
14.78 Hz; standard deviation: 0.98 Hz). The values for
the tested hemp–epoxy composite specimens show a
stronger variation (mean: 16.58 Hz; standard deviation:
1.94 Hz) (Figure 4).
A material property that clearly distinguishes regen-
erated and natural fibers from glass as a reinforcement
fiber in composites is the logarithmic damping decre-
ment (mean: Lyocell 0.0708, hemp 0.0558, flax 0.0595;
standard deviation: Lyocell 0.0109, hemp 0.0032, flax
0.0048), which is significantly lower in glass–epoxy
composites (mean: 0.0317; standard deviation: 0.0070)
(Figure 3).
Conclusion
High damping capacities of regenerated cellulose fiber
or natural fiber reinforced composites at a good stiff-
ness to density ratio point to high value applications of
these materials. The logarithmic damping decrement is
exceptionally high for the Lyocell–epoxy composite
system, which leads to specific properties in comparison
to glass–epoxy composites. The natural fiber compos-
ites tested in this study not only show common trends
for damping, bending strength, and density, but also
show significant differences in parameters such as ultra-
sound velocity. Flax had relatively low ultrasound
velocities, while hemp exceeded the level of the glass
reference composites.
Besides all kinds of environmental aspects these prop-
erties can be favorable for applications such as bodies of
devices requiring a high damping of vibrations or damp-
ing structures in leisure-time or professional gear.
Regenerated fibers such as Lyocell inherit the additional
advantage of low variation in material properties, which
makes them more competitive to glass fiber in the man-
ufacture of composite materials. In any case natural
fiber composites can contribute to the reduction of
glass FRP with poor recyclability.28
Acknowledgment
Many thanks go to Hedda K. Weber and Thomas Roeder
(Lenzing AG) for providing the fiber material.
References
1. Chawla KK. Composite materials, 2nd edn. New York:
Springer, 1998.
2. Netravali AN and Chabba S. Composites get greener.
Mater Today 2003; 6: 22–29.
3. Kelly A, Zweben C and Talreja R. Comprehensive compos-
ite materials. Vol. 2. Polymer matrix composites. Oxford:
Elsevier, 2000.
Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016
3153
4. Mohanty AK, Misra M and Drzal LT. Natural fibres,
biopolymers and biocomposites. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press–Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.
5. Baillie C. Green composites: Polymer composites and the
environment. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd
and Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press LLC, 2004.
6. Marsh G. Next step for automotive materials. Mater
Today 2003; 6: 36–43.
7. Lampke T. Beitrag zur Charakterisierung naturfaserver-
stärkter Verbundwerkstoffe mit hochpolymerer
Matrix, PhD Thesis, Technical University Chemnitz,
Germany, 2001.
8. Kessler RW, Becker U, Kohler R and Goth B. Steam
explosion of flax - a superior technique for upgrading
fibre value. Biomass Bioenerg 1998; 14: 237–249.
9. Nickel J and Riedel U. Activities in biocomposites. Mater
Today 2003; 6: 44–48.
10. Bledzki AK and Gassan J. Composites reinforced with
cellulose-based fibres. Prog Polym Sci 1999; 24: 221–274.
11. Hanselka H and Herrmann AX. Technischer Leitfaden
zur Anwendung von Ökologisch vorteilhaften Faserver-
bundwerkstoffen aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen - am
Beispiel eines Kastenträgers als Prototyp für hochbelast-
bare Baugruppen. Herzogenrath: Shaker Verlag, 1999.
12. Bos HL, Van Den Oever MJA and Peters OCJJ. Tensile
and compressive properties of flax fibres for natural fibre
reinforced composites. J Mater Sci 2002; 37: 1683–1692.
13. Lützkendorf R, Mieck KP, Reußmann T, Nechwatal A
and Eilers M. Lyocellfasern – ihr Entwicklungsstand
unter dem Aspekt des Einsatzes in Composites. In: 3rd
International Wood and Natural Fibre Composite
Symposium, Kassel, Germany, 2000.
14. Gindl W and Keckes J. Strain hardening in regenerated
cellulose fibres. Compos Sci Technol 2006; 66: 2049–2053.
15. Charlet K, Baley C, Morvan C, Jernot JP, Gomina M
and Bréard J. Characteristics of Hermès flax fibres as a
function of their location in the stem and properties of
the derived unidirectional composites. Compos Part A:
Appl Sci Manuf 2007; 38: 1912–1921.
16. Van de Weyenberg I, Chi Truong T, Vangrimde B and
Verpoest I. Improving the properties of UD flax fibre
reinforced composites by applying an alkaline fibre treat-
ment. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2006; 37:
1368–1376.
17. Ganster J, Fink HP and Pinnow M. High-tenacity man-
made cellulose fibre reinforced thermoplastics – Injection
moulding compounds with polypropylene and alternative
matrices. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2006; 37:
1796–1804.
18. Karlsson JO, Blachot JF, Peguy A and Gatenholm P.
Improvement of adhesion between polyethylene and
regenerated cellulose fibres by surface fibrillation.
Polymer Compos 1996; 17: 300–304.
19. Seavey KC and Glasser WG. Continuous cellulose fibre-
reinforced cellulose ester composites. Part-2: Fibre sur-
face modification and consolidation conditions.
Cellulose 2001; 8: 161–169.
20. Adusumalli RB. Characterisation of regenerated cellulose
fibres and their composites. PhD Thesis, University of
Natural Resources and Applied life Sciences Vienna,
3154 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 29(20)

Department of Material Sciences and Process
Engineering, 2008.
21. DIN 52 186. Testing of wood; bending test. 1978.
22. Hearmon RFS. Vibrational testing of wood. Forest Prod
J 1966; 16: 29–40.
23. DIN 6721-1. Plastics – Determination of dynamic
mechanical properties – Part 1: General principles (ISO
6721-1:2001). 2003.
24. DIN 6721-3. Plastics – Determination of the dynamic
mechanical properties – Part 3: Flexural vibration,
Resonance curve (ISO 621-3: 1994). 1996.
25. Buksnowitz C, Teischinger A, Müller U, Pahler A and
Evans R. Resonance wood (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) –
Evaluation and prediction of violin makers’ quality-grad-
ing. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121: 2384–2395.
26. Macdonald JR. Energy dissipation and attenuation under
high loss conditions. Br J Appl Phys 1966; 17: 1347–1354.
27. Wallenberger FT and Weston NE. Natural fibers, plastics
and composites. New York: Springer, 2004.
28. Malkapuram R, Kumar V and Negi YS. Recent develop-
ment in natural fiber reinforced polypropylene composites.
J Reinf Plast Compos 2009; 28: 1169–1189.

Downloaded from jrp.sagepub.com at Technical University of Munich University Library on November 3, 2016